It's A Little Weird Apple Hasn't Already Made A TVhttp://www.businessinsider.com/why-hasnt-apple-made-a-tv-2013-3/comments
en-usWed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 -0500Sun, 02 Aug 2015 19:42:12 -0400Jay Yarowhttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/513bf5dbeab8ea6071000001nicknormalSat, 09 Mar 2013 21:54:19 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/513bf5dbeab8ea6071000001
Sooooo dead.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/513ba1f1eab8eaaa3a000001LexSat, 09 Mar 2013 15:56:17 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/513ba1f1eab8eaaa3a000001
iFans beating dead horse againhttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/513b8c7eecad043404000011bdbrSat, 09 Mar 2013 14:24:46 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/513b8c7eecad043404000011
Be careful with reviews. People insist they need 1080p, even though some channels are 1080i and others are 720p and most don't even realize it! (I only know because I read it) 4,096 × 2,304 pixel TVs are available, but has anyone even noticed? It could be years before they're affordable and ubiquitous enough to warrant significant content.
So if it's not about resolution, it must be about features...but the main feature people usually want is content, which is for the most part is kept out of the hands of the display equipment maker by cable companies. There is virtually no content for resolutions over 1080p.
With prices for good quality displays rapidly falling, super-high resolution being of little benefit, and without control of the content, the real question is why WOULD Apple make a TV?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/513b88a5ecad04de01000004hempshawSat, 09 Mar 2013 14:08:21 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/513b88a5ecad04de01000004
You found your what on the street with a big old butt?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/513b87d9ecad04c97e000002rozzsummerSat, 09 Mar 2013 14:04:57 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/513b87d9ecad04c97e000002
Jay, you hit the issue exactly right with the question, "How can Apple simplify the TV experience when there is an intermediary like a cable company?"
Apple has always taken a much broader perspective of the industry they want to disrupt and unquestionably it has worked to their great success. With respect to "TV", it isn't the TV itself they need improve upon. Your own experience and that of many other commenters have clearly pointed out that current TV's are quite good. It's the current "experience of TV" that is stuck in the dark ages.
To really change the industry, Apple has to make a very bold move. My suggestion: Acquire DirecTV.
When you're done laughing this really does make a ton of sense. The financial logic and consumer experience strategy:
1) Financially it's easily affordable. Apple has $135 billion in cash. DTV currently trades at a market cap of $28.7 billion, so with a ~20% premium the all-in acquisition cost is $35 billion, leaving Apple with more than adequate cash reserves.
2) DTV has EBITDA of $7.52 billion and Apple has $58.05 billion. The addition of $7.52 billion of additional EBITDA to Apple's at a 7x multiple of EBITDA to Market Cap would increase the market value of Apple by $52.6 billion, easily paying for the cash cost of the acquisition in market cap expansion. In addition, the revenue per employee at both companies is surprisingly similar: Apple at $2.16mm per employee and DTV at $1.98mm, indicating similar and very good operating leverage in both companies.
3) Strategically, this would allow Apple to completely by-pass the local Cable Cos and continue to have a direct relationship with it's customers. They would control the entire customer experience end-to-end.
4) It gives Apple enormous leverage to drive content providers to integrate key Apple technologies into their content to improve the advertising model, the interactivity of the experience, and give consumers (finally) a cafeteria-type pricing model that allows them to purchase only what they want.
5) There is no need to develop a giant "retina" display TV and live in a low margin commodity hardware world. Let Chinese manufacturers beat themselves up chasing volume and lower production costs for flat panel displays. Stay out of that market and focus on the intelligence behind the displays and the customer experience that drives higher and much more sustainable gross margins. A lesson from the past from someone who lived through it: Remember when the Japanese were going to decimate the US semiconductor industry in the 80's? Japanese companies focused on memory chips, while US companies like Intel and others focused on logic chips. Who won that battle? Let the commodity stuff stay off-shore there is no need to mess with it.
6) Satellite receivers with a few gigs of flash and wifi would provide Apple with all the viewing stats necessary to create a very fine tuned and individualized set of advertising APIs for advertisers. Through both the satellite downlink and the wifi connection (presumably through the cable modem and/or dsl provider) Apple could pre-load advertising on the satellite receiver and insert specific ads tied to the viewing habits of the subscriber. That would revolutionize the broadcast media advertising market and bring targeted web advertising tools to the traditional old-line TV advertising models. A very big opportunity for the next Marketo or Eloqua to focus on this market.
7) Eventually integrating satellite receivers with a future version of AppleTV would allow seamless presentation of both online and satellite (TV) content, presented to the consumer without the histrionics of button pushing on the TV remote control needed to watch web programming (Youtube, for example) on an wifi equipped TV. Again, the experience would be totally controlled by Apple and as a consumer you wouldn't care what delivery mechanism is used to deliver that content.
8) The iPad/ iPhone Remote Control App for the satellite/AppleTV combo could be amazing: Touch and drag a show to your DVR and watch later on any Apple device you have, anywhere you happen to be, create playlists of favorite shows and easily share them through social media (including short clips of shows you like), every object of interest in a show would have a link behind the video image that brings the consumer to an app or website for more information and/or a purchase, real-time stats of how many people are watching the show you are at the same moment with many spin-off social networking advantages -- including for advertisers. The list is endless.
9) The real entertaining part of this strategy would be watching the cable companies try to respond to this move - does anyone believe it would be anything more than pathetic? Nonetheless, it would force them to change and adopt far more consumer friendly bundling and pricing schemes.
The transaction makes financial sense, leverages the superior consumer experience that underpins the Apple brand, provides an entirely new content platform to innovate on and with, and finally gives consumers the choices they want.
Jay, the statement you made about the cable companies being the evil intermediary is exactly why Apple should purchase DTV and blow up the entire TV industry.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/513b7c16eab8eaa66200000eCamdenSat, 09 Mar 2013 13:14:46 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/513b7c16eab8eaa66200000e
It's not about picture quality and Apple doesn't want to make a TV. Apple wants to change the experience of watching TV. That requires a lot more innovation than better picture quality.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/513b7a3b69beddce3a000013junk scienceSat, 09 Mar 2013 13:06:51 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/513b7a3b69beddce3a000013
been doing just that for years. the return policies used to be even more liberal...http://www.businessinsider.com/c/513b69c5ecad042648000001mr readSat, 09 Mar 2013 11:56:37 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/513b69c5ecad042648000001
number one problem: forced innovation
The question being asked on blogs and financial TV is "Can Apple still innovate?", but does it matter? The fact we're asking such a question is bad news for Apple because if there's one thing Wall St. hates-even more than regulation and taxes- it's forced innovation. Wall St. looks favorably upon innovation if the company can choose to innovate at its own leisurely pace versus 'forced innovation', which is when a company has to innovate to fend off competitors and or increase revenue or profits. Competition and changing consumer sentiment is forcing Apple to frantically introduce lower margin models and new product categories in an effort to be relevant. The mass realization by funds that Apple is in the bad situation of being forced to innovate precludes it from returning to Wall St's good graces, even if Apple does manage to innovate even more than it already is. Look at LinkedIn, Craisgslist, Paypal, Twitter, Google, and Facebook as examples of sites haven't changed much in the years, except for incremental adjustments for usability and spam reduction.
<a href="http://tiny.cc/appleins" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" >http://tiny.cc/appleins</a>
Truth of the matter is, Apple has innovated much more than Google that upon going public in 2004 had already established Adwords and Adsense, but no major revenue generating products since then (maybe Gmail and Android are exceptions, but these generate little revenue). Same for MSFT which developed windows in the 80's, and continues to generate the bulk of its revenue to this very day from windows and office based products. Apple, on the other hand, developed two classes of products since 2004; the iPhone, the iPad, and maybe the iPad Mini and the iCloud. Look at Best Buy, which is being forced to innovate against Amazon, and the stock has been obliterated. Or RIMM, which debued a tablet and new iterations of blackberry with little avail to its falling stock price. Wall St.'s perfect company is a black box that perpetually prints money, only needs occasional polishing, and has no competing boxes. Google fits the bill perfectly, and that's why Google stock will go to $1200 within two years as AAPL will keep falling.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/513b6788eab8eabc3600000aMarylandSat, 09 Mar 2013 11:47:04 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/513b6788eab8eabc3600000a
Me too! My Samsung TV never worked correctly. The picture has distortion and the remote is weak and won't work unless it is pointed at a small area. Multiple calls to customer service were a waste of time.
It's the cheapest and crappiest television that I ever owned. Never again for any samsung product.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/513b63656bb3f7e42a000006middleclassnumbSat, 09 Mar 2013 11:29:25 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/513b63656bb3f7e42a000006
The only thing I'd like to see is my little black Apple TV hockey puck have more content & control the rest of my viewing pleasure on my sub $700 dollar 50" flat screen HD TVhttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/513b6211eab8ea9c2c000001TheFree_LanceSat, 09 Mar 2013 11:23:45 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/513b6211eab8ea9c2c000001
Junk the plasma, join Costco, get their Amex, and double the warranty, with no restocking fee on a dud.
Absolutely the only way to buy run-of-the-mill consumer electronics.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/513b5e2deab8ea4c1d000012Simon Tree BuchSat, 09 Mar 2013 11:07:09 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/513b5e2deab8ea4c1d000012
The concept "TV" is old. What we really need is a large iDisplay for social viewing, sharing, and exploring experiences together. A iDisplay with the possibility of split screen (eg teacher's assigment on the left, pupil's solution on the right), with the possibility of moving objects around with the fingers, with the possibility to connect to anyone and anything. And with an app store, because no one can foresee what could happen on this large screen beforehand. Apple has the design edge, the brand affinity, all the dots in their iPhone and iPad drawers. Why Apple haven't connect the dots already, is what puzzles me.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/513b5c8feab8ea411a000029Jay YarowSat, 09 Mar 2013 11:00:15 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/513b5c8feab8ea411a000029
I'm sure there would be some junk people don't want from Apple.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/513b5b14eab8ead81c000004André Kenji De SousaSat, 09 Mar 2013 10:53:56 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/513b5b14eab8ead81c000004
Simple. Apple does not make TV´s because that´s a commoditized market, where profits margins are very small(In fact, Sony´s TV operation is unprofitable, for instance). A retina TV would be expensive, and there is very little content that would be able to use that resolution.
Besides that, there is already an Apple solution for the TV market. It´s called "Ipad".http://www.businessinsider.com/c/513b59feecad04b929000001Freddy beeSat, 09 Mar 2013 10:49:18 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/513b59feecad04b929000001
Yeah Jay, tvs are "stuffed with crap nobody wants"... But an Apple TV shipping with iMessage, iCloud, FaceTime, iAd, podcast app, etc.... That stuff everyone would want.